16 Aug 07
Originally posted by whodeyI think God is more concerned with the quality and depth of realtionships than gender in particular. If two homosexuals are involved in a deep , mutually respectful , loving and nourishing relationship and sex is an expression of that then I think God has less of a problem with it than two hetrosexuals whose sex is shallow and meaningless. My feeling is that by becoming concerned with gender we have taken our eyes of the ball somewhat. God is love , if two men or women love each other and express this to each other with sex who am I to judge ? I would quite happily prefer a world full of homosexual love than hetrosexual fornication.
Again, it depends on the church. For example, some church's teach that premarital sex is OK. Some church's are more liberal than others regarding such teachings on interpretations of scripture. However, if you were to join a church that taught that premarrital sex is viewed as a sin then I would assume when you joined that you reviewed their beliefs and th ...[text shortened]... at my views on the matter are in regards to what the word of God says on the matter. Peace.
17 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou say they are unclear but you don't explain how. For clarity, I will reproduce them here (KJV):
The following is all related. I probably should have put it in a separate paragraph for clarity.
Even the Romans verses you point to are unclear. An unanswered question is whether or not gender preference is inborn. If it is, then it would be 'natural' for those born homosexual to have same gender sex and it would only be 'unnatural' for those born heterosexual to have same gender sex.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
How, in your opinion, is that unclear?
17 Aug 07
2 edits
Originally posted by t0lkienLet's back up a little further to 1:24 to put the verses in context. There are a couple of points that need to be made here: 1) There is an emphasis on what is "natural". 2) There is an emphasis on lust being the driving force.
You say they are unclear but you don't explain how. For clarity, I will reproduce them here (KJV):
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men wi ...[text shortened]... es that recompence of their error which was meet.
How, in your opinion, is that unclear?
1) If gender preference is inborn, could it not be as "natural" for those born homosexual to have same gender sex as it is for those born heterosexual to have opposite gender sex?
2) If it possible for a man and woman to forge a relationship based on love, caring, respect, trust etc. and not lust, then could not a man and man or a woman and woman forge the same type of relationship?
Romans clearly points to an "unnatural" relationship with lust as the driving force. Could it be that Romans is pointing to those that are born heterosexual that are so filled with lust that they go against their nature and engage in same gender sex?
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
17 Aug 07
4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterHow do you interpret this passage?
I think God is more concerned with the quality and depth of realtionships than gender in particular. If two homosexuals are involved in a deep , mutually respectful , loving and nourishing relationship and sex is an expression of that then I think God has less of a problem with it than two hetrosexuals whose sex is shallow and meaningless. My feeling i ...[text shortened]... dge ? I would quite happily prefer a world full of homosexual love than hetrosexual fornication.
Mark 10:6 Jesus states, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause will a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife. And they two will be one flesh, so then they are no more two, but one flesh."
Granted the passage in question is talking about divorce, but marriage was assumed to be between a man and a woman for that time. Why is it then, if homosexuality is not a sin except between promiscuous homosexauls, that homosexuals were not allowed to marry and subsequently not even included in any of the teachings of Christ? For me it seems to indicate that homosexual behavoir was assumed by people of that time to be a sin, thus they were never included in such arguements as to how such unions could be "pure" just like those who had been divorced might be "pure".
17 Aug 07
Originally posted by whodeyFor me it seems to indicate that homosexual behavoir was assumed by people of that time to be a sin, thus they were never included in such arguements as to how such unions could be "pure" just like those who had been divorced might be "pure". WHODEY
How do you interpret this passage?
Mark 10:6 Jesus states, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause will a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife. And they two will be one flesh, so then they are no more two, but one flesh."
Granted the passage in question is talking about divorce, but marr ...[text shortened]... to how such unions could be "pure" just like those who had been divorced might be "pure".
For me it indicates the same thing - but who cares what they thought? We know better now- these people also thought that the earth was 8,000 years old and the garden of eden was a real place. Christianity will die if it does not evolve.
You are still coming up with no reasoning at all as to why it is sinful. For example . pornography can be considered sinful on the psychological grounds of emotionally objectifying human beings or lack of sensitivity towards others. Your argument against homosexuality seems to entirely scriptural and nothing else.
What do you make of transgendered people. Let's say a man(with male DNA) who was born in a woman's body has surgery to create a john thomas . He makes love to another man (male DNA) born with a woman's genitals and a very feminised brain (poor testosterone flooding in the womb) . They love each other deeply and have built a relationship together because they would probably be rejected by other prospective partners. Maybe one or both of the men have no idea they have male DNA ? Maybe , the whole gender issue is not important to them? Scripturally such a union would be said to be unnatural , however none of us are anatomically perfect or as nature intended us to be . We all carry mutant dormant genes and defects. Are these two people just making the best of what they have got and expressing their love for each other? Or does God call it sin? The God I believe in is not obsessed with gender and perfection but he is obsessed with love and humans respect for each other.
18 Aug 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou raise some interesting questions in terms of sexual ambiguousness at birth. However, I take issue with the notion that loving one another and/or having deep relationships with each other should or must envolve sexual expression.
For me it seems to indicate that homosexual behavoir was assumed by people of that time to be a sin, thus they were never included in such arguements as to how such unions could be "pure" just like those who had been divorced might be "pure". WHODEY
For me it indicates the same thing - but who cares what they thought? We know better now- these peopl ...[text shortened]... ith gender and perfection but he is obsessed with love and humans respect for each other.
As far as who cares what the disciples thought and what Jesus thought, I care. After all, I am his follower. Therefore, I think it has great significance. You say that Christianity will die off if it does not evolve. I interpret this to mean that if it does not become increasingly liberal in its moral interpretation of scripture by slowly capitulating to the morality of the society in which we live that it will die. However, from what I observe the opposite seems to be true. It seems to me that the more "liberal" denominations are becoming the more they are slowly dying off as where the opposite is true for their counterparts. Make no mistake about it, the more the church becomes like the world, the less the church has to offer the world. It is tempting to preach a "feel good" gospel in which sin is overlooked based upon the notion that the sinner can't help themselves or that they were born that way, or that their parents caused them to sin or they are not really hurting any body so why rain on their parade? However, what of Adam and Eve in the garden? Were they created to sin? Did they have no choice? Who were they hurting by partaking of the fruit? Why was the fruit "bad"? Could they reason it out for themselves? No they could not. That is why I am sticking to my statement beforehand that my position lies partially in faith that God has told us it is sinful. The serpent can beguile me and reason with me till he is blue in the face and then I will turn to him and simply laugh at him.
18 Aug 07
Originally posted by whodeyHowever, what of Adam and Eve in the garden? Were they created to sin? Did they have no choice? Who were they hurting by partaking of the fruit? Why was the fruit "bad"? Could they reason it out for themselves? WHODEY
You raise some interesting questions in terms of sexual ambiguousness at birth. However, I take issue with the notion that loving one another and/or having deep relationships with each other should or must envolve sexual expression.
As far as who cares what the disciples thought and what Jesus thought, I care. After all, I am his follower. Therefore, I ...[text shortened]... with me till he is blue in the face and then I will turn to him and simply laugh at him.
...They did not exist!!......for a long time the church clung vainly to the idea that the new science of evolution could shed no light on creation and it kept it's head in the sand on Genesis. It was one of the church's biggest mistakes. It just made Christianity look silly. In a few hundred years this gender issue will be similar. Christianity has always looked silly when it has tried to stand rigidly against science. In the end many Christians learnt to roll with the punches of evolution rather than stay creationists spouting nonsense their about " a scientific conspiracy to discredit scripture".
Even in Jesus's time things were being over- turned and re-written . The idea of not being circumsised and being accpetable to God once seemed abhorent to many . Now it just looks silly and circumsion is beginning to be seen as a form of mutilation and abuse. You have not understood what I mean when I say the church should evolve. I mean it should evolve beyond the petty squabbles about what scripture says about this and that and mature into a church that tackles sin on a more deep level.
18 Aug 07
Originally posted by whodeyYou raise some interesting questions in terms of sexual ambiguousness at birth. However, I take issue with the notion that loving one another and/or having deep relationships with each other should or must envolve sexual expression. WHODEY
You raise some interesting questions in terms of sexual ambiguousness at birth. However, I take issue with the notion that loving one another and/or having deep relationships with each other should or must envolve sexual expression.
As far as who cares what the disciples thought and what Jesus thought, I care. After all, I am his follower. Therefore, I ...[text shortened]... with me till he is blue in the face and then I will turn to him and simply laugh at him.
....which may or may not be true. However , if it does involve sexual expression what difference does it make? Are you saying that it is Ok for these two people to love each other and buy a house together , build lives together ...but as soon as one of them penetrates the other with his body then it becomes "sin"?
I want you to consider one thing here. To me any sin that is worth the time of day is one that can be justified and argued from BOTH scripture but also human morality and reason. If one has no reason to call something sinful other than because "it says so in the Bible" then it is a very flimsy position.
It's a bit like having an abstract rule in a game of golf. Every rule in golf is there for a reason but it is also in the rule book as well. If there was a rule that said that a player eating a bannana on hole 14 was penalised 2 shots we might rightly ask "what is the purpose or reasoning behind such a rule?" OR "this rule seems arbitary and abstract and discriminatory for no self evident reason " OR "this rule was probably made up by someone who had an aversion to bananas"
You seem to be able to point to nothing other than scripture in support of your argument. This is what makes this "sin" different from other sins . It is an abstract rule floating around in the remnants of homophobia with no rationale to it.
You need to show how people ae being hurt by homosexuality in order to back up your argument. My view is that the churches stance is actaully hurting people right now. It's discriminatory and some are driven to deep depression or suicide by homophobia. That's the biggest sin that is being missed in all this.
18 Aug 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterRubbish!! Who says that the account of Adam and Eve could not have happened if God did not use an evolutionary means to create? Here is something to consider. Perhaps it will give you a new perspective on what might have happened.
...They did not exist!!......for a long time the church clung vainly to the idea that the new science of evolution could shed no light on creation and it kept it's head in the sand on Genesis. It was one of the church's biggest mistakes. It just made Christianity look silly. In a few hundred years this gender issue will be similar. Christianity has alwa ...[text shortened]... creationists spouting nonsense their about " a scientific conspiracy to discredit scripture".
"Biblically, divine punctuation in the flow of life is seen in the original creation of the universe, in the creation of the ability for animal life to arise from this matter, and in the tenfold repetition of "and God said" recorded in the first chapter of Genesis. The fact that the making of man is the most intimately described event of that chapter in Genesis implies that makind is the targeted goal of those punctuations.
When on the 6th day, in the Creattor's space-time reference frame, God decided to make mankind, the Bible first states that God will make man in God's image and likeness (Gen 1:26). In the following verse it is written, "God created mankind in his image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them." The verb make and create are both used, and so, from these two verses, it appears that both making and creating were involved in the appearance of the first of mankind. Later (Gen 2:7), it is explicitly stated that mankind is formed from a previously existing substance, in fact, the same substance used to form fowl and land animals (Gen 2:19). However, a special ingredient not mentioned before is summoned at this juncture. God breathes a neshamah, a "soul life," into this creature and man becomes a living being.
Nahmanides in his commentary on Genesis and Maimonides in his Guide for the Perplexed (written hundreds of years ago) both state with no equivocation; "Every material thing that wes eventually to exist was derived from what was created in the first instant of creation. That was the only material creation." From that ethereal mass of pure energy and expuisitely thin substance, stones and galaxies and humans were to be formed. We are products of the Big Bang. We are, in fact, made of star dust. The material aspects of man are totally rooted in the universe.
The specialy to makind in not the physical attributes we have. All primates have grasping upper limbs and overlapping binocular vision. Based on the position of the larynx inferred from skull shape, articulate speech has been possible for over 100,000 years. The size of the cranial cavity, form which brain size is estimated, has not changed much in the primate we call Homo sapiens for the past 100,000 years.
Because our physical makeup is not what makes us unique and because sages and scientists agree that the matter of mankind has a common origin with all other universal matter, a theological problem is not posed by having the physique of mankind develop through an evolutionary process. Indeed, Nahmanides comments on Genesis 1:26 that the "us" of "And God said let us make man" referes to joint contributions bvy God and the existing Earth. Here Nahmandes repeats that only on the first day was matter created from nothing. Thereafter all things were formed from the existing elements. For this reason it is written that at God's command, the waters and land brought forth life.
However, mankind and his predecessors, although physically related, are not connected by a spiritual line of evolution. Homosapians roamed the Earth for some 300,000 years, in our spacetime reference frame, prior to the appearance of mankind. The Neanderthals appear to have started burying their dead 100,000 years ago and their fossil remains as well as those of the more recent Cro-Magnon became increasingly similar in shape to human beings as the time before the present decreases. But neither the Neanderthal nor the Cro-Magnon evolved into human beings.
At a crucial junction some 5,700 years ago a quantum change occurred. This change is the reason for the biblically stated partnership between God and teh Earth in creating mankind. Indeed, so intimate is mankind's connection with the Earth that the name chosen for the first of the species is Adam, which means "soil" in Hebrew.
All animals recieved a life-giving spirit, a nefesh in Hebrew. The animal that was about to become Adam was no exception. However, into the physical form that contained the nefesh of Adam, the Creator placed an additional spirit, or soul, the Neshamah. It is this that has set mankind apart from the other animals. "And the Lord formed man from the dust of the ground (adamah) and blew in his nostrils a soul of life (neshamah), and the man became a living being (nefesh) (Gen 2:7).
In The Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides makes a remarkable comment. IN the time of Adam, he writes, there coexisted animals that appeared as humans in shape and also in intelligence but lacked the "image" that makes man uniquely different from other animals, being as the "image" of God.....
I could go on but I think you get the idea as to where I stand. If you are interested this comes from a book called, "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Gerald L. Schroeder. It's a good read.
18 Aug 07
6 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThere is an emphasis on what is natural.
Let's back up a little further to 1:24 to put the verses in context. There are a couple of points that need to be made here: 1) There is an emphasis on what is "natural". 2) There is an emphasis on lust being the driving force.
1) If gender preference is inborn, could it not be as "natural" for those born homosexual to have same gender sex as it is f unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.[/i]
Yes, I agree with this. And the implication of verse 26 is that women had sex with women, and that was unnatural. The meaning is emphasized by the "even" i.e. it is especially unnatural for women to do so (presumably as opposed to men). I believe this emphasis is clearer in the Greek, which is why Tyndale used the English word "even" in his original translation that ended up making up most of the KJV.
There is an emphasis on lust being the driving force.
Here you are, I believe, forcing a misreading upon the scripture. The point of verse 27 is not just that they lusted, but that the lust was unnatural (implied) and what they did was "unseemly" i.e. strongly unnatural. It was what they did that was in error, the lust that lead to it was the "vile affection" that God gave them up to because of their spiritual error i.e. the homosexual lust was an unnatural affection.
Notice there is no mention of heterosexual interraction here. If the two types of sexuality are equivalent in the mind of the writer, why the distinction in scripture? It is clear that heterosexual lust and sexual sin is sin, so why the distinction here if the intent of the scripture is not to point out that same sex sexuality is unusual error (and in this case the unusually extreme consequences of spiritual unfaithfulness)?
If gender preference is inborn...
As I said previously, this is a very messy and inconclusive argument to begin. However, even so, it's secondary to the point I am making. I am just trying to address the scriptural problems as we are talking about the Christian church (which is based upon a belief in the veracity of scripture). I'll leave the philosophical and apologetic questions for others (though they are very good questions; I'm not dismissing them, just keeping the point of this particular thread clear). I understand the point you are making though, and am not ignoring it 🙂
18 Aug 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterEven if Adam and Eve did not exist, what message do you get from the story? Is it not inspired by God? What is wrong with fruit? Is not fruit, fruit? Is not sex, sex? Why the mandate by God to not do something other than because he said so? Is there not an element of faith in doing as God says even if you may not understand why? Must we have the mind of God to understand what he says to do. If so, would we not be God ourselves?
...They did not exist!!......for a long time the church clung vainly to the idea that the new science of evolution could shed no light on creation and it kept it's head in the sand on Genesis. It was one of the church's biggest mistakes. It just made Christianity look silly. In a few hundred years this gender issue will be similar. Christianity has always ...[text shortened]... creationists spouting nonsense their about " a scientific conspiracy to discredit scripture".
18 Aug 07
3 edits
May I just point out that New Earth Creationism is a relatively new belief in the history of Christianity (and is not held by even the majority of believers), and that the word translated "day" in Genesis is the same root word we get the English word "eon" from i.e. it does not necessarily imply a literal 24 hour period.
There is a really good book covering both the science and theology around that one point, and as soon as I remember the name of it, I will post it. It is something like "Creation vs. Evolution". I have owned two copies of it and loaned both out to friends. And we all know what happens to books when you do that 🙂
18 Aug 07
Originally posted by whodeyThis does look interesting stuff. I will look it up.
Rubbish!! Who says that the account of Adam and Eve could not have happened if God did not use an evolutionary means to create? Here is something to consider. Perhaps it will give you a new perspective on what might have happened.
"Biblically, divine punctuation in the flow of life is seen in the original creation of the universe, in the creation of the ...[text shortened]... "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Gerald L. Schroeder. It's a good read.
18 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterLets explore what Jesus said shall we?
Even in Jesus's time things were being over- turned and re-written . The idea of not being circumsised and being accpetable to God once seemed abhorent to many . Now it just looks silly and circumsion is beginning to be seen as a form of mutilation and abuse. You have not understood what I mean when I say the church should evolve. I mean it should evolve ...[text shortened]... ipture says about this and that and mature into a church that tackles sin on a more deep level.[/b]
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17
Granted, Paul said that such things as eating pork and circumcision are no longer needed do to the fact that these acts are not spiritual in nature, rather, they are merely physical in nature. For example, eating healthy foods and avoiding foods that are high in fat content, like pork, and circumcising so that problems may not arise due to uncircumcision can be beneficial physically, however, spiritually they have no bearing. Again, there is a spiritual element to sexual unions and NO WHERE in the OT or NT is there an allowance made for homosexual conduct. You are free to believe what you will, however, you have no Biblical support for doing so.
BTW: There is some evidence medically that circumcision is beneficial in terms of overall physical health. I know of several people who have had medical issues later in life due to uncircumcision and have decided to then undergo circumcision after having such problems. Therefore, I would not call it mutilation.
18 Aug 07
Originally posted by whodeyWhat is wrong with fruit? Is not fruit, fruit? Is not sex, sex? Why the mandate by God to not do something other than because he said so? Is there not an element of faith in doing as God says even if you may not understand why? Must we have the mind of God to understand what he says to do. If so, would we not be God ourselves? WHODEY
Even if Adam and Eve did not exist, what message do you get from the story? Is it not inspired by God? What is wrong with fruit? Is not fruit, fruit? Is not sex, sex? Why the mandate by God to not do something other than because he said so? Is there not an element of faith in doing as God says even if you may not understand why? Must we have the mind of God to understand what he says to do. If so, would we not be God ourselves?
RESPONSE--
But we DO need an external reference as well. We need to question things and pick them apart. People fly planes into buildings on the basis of unquestioning faith. The doctrine of "ours is not to question why" is VERY dangerous. If God is telling me through scripture that one should discriminate against people because of their sexuality then I feel entitled to ask him for some other explanation than "it's in scripture". I want to know why. As soon as religion becomes self referential and incestous to the point where scripture is true "because it is" then we are slippery ground. Many factions have used this same reasoning to do all sorts of evil. The Klu Klux Klan used scripture to discriminate racially and we are doing the same with sexuality!!